Re: Hercynian (again)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Tavi" <oalexandre@...> wrote:

>
> By this and others reasons I consider the traditional PIE model as inadequate. This is why I replace it with a
> multi-layer and multi-tree

model. "Multi-layer" means that IE languages are the result of one or more

> language replacement processes, which caused a superposition of

lexical layers, and "multi-tree" means

> there was more than a

protolanguage these layers have originated from. So IMHO they weren't a single but > several PIEs.

>

Colloquially speaking, in many cases "native IE" would correspond to the more recent layer (i.e. the superstrate) found in most IE branches, that is, the language spoken by the Steppe people which I call "Pontic". But older layers have also significantly contributed to the lexicon and morphology of the IE family, so it isn't easy to isolate a native core for the whole IE family.

> IMHO the root *perkW- 'oak, pine' isn't a native IE word but rather a
> substrate borrowing (call it "Paleo-European" or whatever else), and its
> similarity to the name of a thunder god in some cultures is purely
> coincidential. There's no need to imagine implausible semantic shifts
> and the like.
>

In my own model, this word would belong to a Mesolithic language spoken in West Europe whose lexicon has been incorporated (through language replacement) into IE, so it's a "substrate" only relatively. I've found a likely cognate in NEC *Xwy:rkKV 'tree, oak-tree'.